MacN'Cheezus @ MacNCheezus @lemmy.today

Posts

279

Comments

2,343

Joined

2 yr. ago

Surely it would be cheaper, easier, and more profitable to grow them right here rather than importing them, so why aren't we doing it?

It’s not, because overseas labor is still far cheaper than domestic. Even tariffs won’t change that entirely, they’ll just make it a little more competitive to grow domestically.

They can grow lettice and tomatoes in California, but not year round.

Of course they can, ever heard of greenhouses?

Also, places like the Imperial Valley have ideal growing climate throughout the winter and crank out a massive amount of produce.

You should really do a bit more research before posting such nonsense.

You think they can’t grow lettuce or tomatoes in California?

And bananas will still be available, they’ll just be more expensive.

Also, if your economy relies on illegal immigrants to harvest your crops, how is that any better than slavery? It’s basically indentured servitude.

Most of the southern states are warm enough to grow veggies year-round. California alone supplies like half of the US’s produce.

But US companies cannot make everything in the US. The industrial base was off-shored.

Sure they can, they just won’t, because it’s cheaper to make in China. And that’s the whole point of the tariffs, to level the playing field and make US manufacturing more competitive.

And who is going to buy all this US made stuff?

Americans of course. The US is still the biggest market in the world.

Companies whose products are entirely made in the U.S. could benefit: “At least in the short term, employment would likely rise there, because those folks will see more demand,” says Holzer. That could mean cumulative hikes of tens of thousands or even a few hundred thousand jobs added in the next three or four months, he says.

This is the entire point of the tariffs.

Also, I’m not entirely sure why they put the short-term qualifier there. In fact, it would seem that companies who make everything in the US would stand to benefit long-term, and also that more companies will invest in domestic production, which will create more jobs in the long run.

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

vOtE bLuE nO mAtTeR wHo

He was a conman

What does that matter if Stalin fell for it? Again, it was Stalin who put him in the position where he could do all that damage.

Who put Lysenko in a position of power?

As I said earlier, neither Mao or Stalin were aiming for a famine

So that makes it okay? "Sorry bro, I just killed 6 million people but it wasn't on purpose"

Women can be surprisingly vindictive. I've been fired from a job before because a woman there did not like me and just made up a sexual assault allegation against me. I never even touched her and I definitely did not have any intentions towards her but that did not matter because the company had a zero tolerance policy. They did not even care to hear my side of the story, they just fired me on the spot without recourse.

To this day I have no idea what I did that might have pissed her off so much she'd want to destroy my livelihood. She was married AND pregnant and as much of a dirtbag as I might be, I would never even dream of hitting on someone like that.

That's immaterial. Stalin probably didn't execute any of those 800k people himself, but he's still responsible because he ordered their deaths. Likewise, it was him who put Lysenko into a position of power where he could cause the holodomor, so he's at least partly responsible.

It's as if you're arguing Hitler wasn't responsible for Mengele's torture experiments because it wasn't him who was conducting them.

No, but you keep talking past them.

Okay, but even if you remove the ~6 million deaths from the holodomor, he still remains responsible for the ~800k executions and ~1.5 M gulag deaths. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.

At how many million deaths would you draw the line between a bad man and a good man?

You were making a case that Stalin wasn't responsible for the holodomor, but you ignored the fact that even without that, he's still directly responsible for at least 2 million deaths.

I never said that.

Yes, the idea that a lump sum payment of any kind could ever permanently erase any condition such as homelessness or hunger is ridiculous, because unless the people involved are somehow rehabilitated and returned to the workforce, there will definitely be ongoing costs.